"Faith is being sure of what you hope for..." In essence, a profound sense of gratitude for what we have already received. For an absolute promise from God, that is what predestination is all about. For there is only one thing that God cannot create, which is the only thing that we can create with no material help from God. Our gratitude born of humility.
If YOU'RE of Calvinism that is inconsistent, Calvinism teaches MITICULOUS DETERMINISM, they do not teach that a believer or unbeliever can THINK, SAY, or DO anything apart from GOD causing /making them do it. SCRIPTURE CONTRADICTS CALVINISM COMPLETELY. Here are only 3 absolutely clear verses, which utterly refute Calvinism in any language, including Hebrewand Greek- Jeremiah 7:31,19:5, 32:35. God says these Israelites did what He DID NOT COMMAND and what they did NEVER ENTERED HIS MIND, IN Hebrew- was never constructed in His mind. There are literal hundreds of verses which instantiate that Sovereign God made mankind with the ability to choose to follow after His will or run contrary to it and this is demonstrated throughout the Old and New Testaments. A refutation of Calvinism need only be an argument, in context, like these 3, for the God given ABILITY TO CHOOSE TO FOLLOW HIS WILL or run contrary to it.
An important and wonderful lecture with many important questions. It is very refreshing to hear a learned man with such a sense of humor who is not afraid to discuss challenging questions in a reasonable way and who gives us the whole picture. Daniel Wallace is the perfect antidote to Bart Ehrman, a very disappointing scholar because although he says truths, he doesn't say ALL the truth. When you know the whole picture, then the Erhman's attacks against christianity appear for what they are - fraudulent statements.
Just wanted to thank you for saying that. I'm brand new to textual criticism and as and all I knew about was dr.erhmans side PERIOD! I have been so angry with God I mean nearly lost my faith! Erhman had me man. I've been sick and dazed trying process the implications of of everything I have staked eternal life on. But your words ANTIDOTE to erhman..I wasn't aware we even possessed a comback to Erhman. I cannot begin to thank you P Belgazo. I feel like I've been poisoned at Erhmans well. So grateful! Needed this staggering evidence so badly. Thanks again
@@austinnewby9666 Thank you for this nice comment. My study of religions and particularly of their sociological impact convinced me that Christianity (but perhaps not all its variants) and more particularly its doctrine (churchmen have not always been up to the challenges and the spirit of the Gospels) is all in all the best of religions (if we need to have one ...but who and what society can really "live" without a religious perspective) to ensure harmony between men but also to ensure the progress of societies because it has been profoundly liberating. Each of these statements would deserve to be developed and argued, but it would take too long here. However, one of the thinkers who best defends these theses is Rodney Stark, one of the great American sociologists of religions. He is also a very good writer, with a very direct style, which makes his books very pleasant to read.! Stark is the one who contributed the most to opening my eyes, to advancing me intellectually and freeing me from Enlightenment propaganda (particularly the French Enlightenment, unfortunately still influential) I particularly recommend “False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History” and also "For the Glory of God" (probably his masterpiece) and "How the West Won".
"By AD 500, 80% of all Christian books have been written on a codex. 20% of all non-Christian books had been written on a codex. It's the first and probably the only time in the history of the church where Christians have been ahead of the technological curve." That statement actually hits hard. What are we doing with technology today and how can we get ahead like we were before?
He did reveal himself, the nature of man is sin, idolatry, selfishness, hatred, etc just look at the world around you. Only by God's grace can you be saved. Not everyone will be. If you don't believe then God has not given grace to you. I used to be an atheist, so I know how you feel. I'm very glad the lord has saved me.
Amen! The early Apostles & Disciples really didn't need much of the Bible for people to be saved,all one needed to know was that Jesus was God in flesh and came to save sinners by Grace alone(his doing) and if you repent and believe you will be saved,because He has made you born again.The Gospel is pretty simple and since the Holy Spirit saves through this message,anyone could repeat it,even an unbeliever and it will still save people.
“If we think we can have absolute certainty about what is the word of God, then we’ve got some problems with that”. Yes you heard that right, direct quote, Dan Wallace at Biola University Chapel.
My eternal destiny does not hang in the balances of Suetonius or Caesar. So the fact that we have few ancient copies of their works is of zero consequence.
Who exactly is saying that we can't know what Jesus said? Even skeptical scholars seem to acknowledge that at least certain sayings can be likely traced back to Jesus. 19:25
A high Christology is essential for seeing the gospels for what they are. Once we reduce Jesus to a rabbi or ethicist, we'll see the gospels more as stories or mythologies that grew over time.
Again, God is under no obligation to save you. All of these questions are answered quite clearly in the book of Romans. Only by the grace of God will you have faith. If you don't have faith then you don't have faith.
We got the texts didn't we? Even secular scholars like Bart Ehrman would admit to how well the texts that we have now match what the autographs had. The messiah was always going to come from the seed of David. Why would that happen in China? Who's people had no personal connection to the God of the Jewish scriptures.
That is the Muslim veiw. That the original Bible is lost, that is why Allah gave us the Quran. I see evidance of the Christian faith in History but not Islam.
Why all the texts are in greek, why there is no fragment written in aramaic? Wasnt aramaic the common language for jews in the first century? Or some fragments written in hebrew???
Dr. Wallace is obviously a learned scholar and an intelligent man, but it's rather frustrating to continue to hear scholars claim that "we don't have the original autographs of the New Testament". This claim can only be made on a faith basis, as manuscripts are continually being discovered and with the historical references by the apostolic fathers regarding the reverence with which the writings were treated, it is possible, maybe even probable, that they took great pains to preserve these documents. And if they did, then what is difficult to believe that the originals may still be preserved somewhere, since we know that the Dead Sea Scrolls were preserved for 2,000 years? So, it would actually be more accurate to say that "we are not aware of the existence of the originals".
If the documentation of this story was truly important to God, Why would he chose first century Palestine, an illiterate and highly superstitious society? Why not Grece or China for that matter? China was a literate and advanced society and there are many silk manuscripts predating this period that still exist.
Yes, the nature of men is sin. If you don't see this then you haven't opened your eyes. The problem with your comparison is that the person is not the creator of the universe. But hey, as long as your happy I guess. If you think you're OK then that's all that matters. Don't worry about all this stuff!
"And when it did so, Latin became the lingua franca. The language that everybody spoke in the West. And consequently to this day we have over 10,000 manuscripts in Latin..." ??? Sir, I think you are forgetting to mention the fact of the explicit censorship that existed that curtailed the translation of the Bible into non-Latin languages. Additionally, Latin was not universally adopted in Britain and other areas of Europe, as implied and, in many instances, limited to only the elite.
Check out Jim Warner Wallace, former cold case detective and staunch atheist, the author of Cold Case Christianity, God's Crime Scene, Forensic Faith etc. He used his skills as a detective and atheist to examine the facts of history concerning Jesus and was reluctant to accept Jesus, but eventually realized that all the evidence pointed only in one direction and it was his pride preventing him from accepting the truth about Jesus' resurrection. Jim is helpful, as a detective, in explaining that those historians don't prove the truth of the gospels, but simply corroborated the details written in the 4 gospels. That is a very important point when building a cumulative case of circumstantial evidence. I like to listen to former skeptics like C. S. Lewis or Josh McDowell, who finally gave in because they have accepted the evidence and have acknowledged their bias toward God and Jesus.
That certainly is a convenient way out. I am not stating that God has any obligation, merely pointing out that he sure seemed to think it was important to reveal himself in order to make sure we did not worship another god. If he is still concerned about this, why not update his resume with some scientific proof?
@@MPaulHolmesMPH Wrong, the same thing that happens to kids who are never born probably happened to them, they go to heaven automatically since they never got a chance.
Also only then unique circumstances helped the dead sea scrolls survive.Diocletian went on a huge persecution of christians & burned many christian libraries.
Dartpopo2000 Popo cult would be a more modern term. A sect, yes. But cult is a more modern construct, especially the way we use it now. Which is different even from how we used the term in the 70’s. Actually the Romans thought of them as a sect within Judaism. It was some time before they thought of them as a distinct group. And as far as what the Jewish leaders felt - well one only has to read the arrest & trial of Jesus to get an answer to that.
Dead Sea Scrolls were written from 250 BCE to 70 CE, very deteriorated, nothing to do with Jesus. Copying old manuscript might have some errors specially the fear from romans if caught someone would send to the lions, I image a lot were verbal.
This isn't a contradiction, while "Reuel" may have been his name, Jethro is a Hebrew "title" meaning his excellency....the daughters of Reuel call him by name, yet Moses called him "your excellency" Makes sense because Reuel gave him(a foreigner) a home and a family even though foreigners to any land were treated harshly in that era
The nature if man is sin? I disagree. I feel that the concept that we are naturally horrible, and anything good about us is thanks to some supernatural external entity is terribly psychologically manipulative. This is the same technique used by domestic abusers. "you are nothing without me, worship only me, if I hurt you it's for your own good, be good or more bad things will happen. I must say I am not "lost". I am quite fulfilled and amazed by the natural world that surrounds me.
Personally i find the history side really interesting but the idea that the Bible is the word of God is just absurd. I simply can't believe that if a God exists it would explain it's ideas in such a way and with such little intellectual clarity.
@@versioncity1 A Christian is someone who believes the death and resurrection of Jesus to bring God and man together. One who hears the teaching of Jesus and does what he says. One who loves their neighbor as themselves and loves God with all their heart, soul, and mind. Becoming a Christian involves repentance. A man forsakes his ways and his thoughts and fills his heart with Gods words and wisdom.His mind is renewed and he is washed with the word of God and begins the journey of living a life set apart for God. But one must earnestly believe. Because it is not of ourselves but it is God who wills in us to do good so that no man may boast. We put away malice, foul language, sexual immorality and all the other things that defile a man. We take care to guard out hearts because everything we do flows from it. Clearly professing to be a Christian doesn't make you one. But you will know people by their fruits. That decision is made at the end at the judgement. Christ's teachings go as far as loving your enemies, which one can only do with the power of the spirit. That's alot and sorry if it's all over the place. I just woke up lol.
What about those who have heard, and do not believe these claims? We are built to not accept something to be true without adequate evidence. Given the christian theology, God is omnipotent, and omnipresent, and created us. If this is true, he knows exactly what it would take to prove himself to us, yet chooses not to. Please understand that many like me were raised in the church, and lost our faith during an intense scholarly search that disclosed too many logical fallacies.
There is quite a large body of scholarship that are based on the myriad of discrepancies and contradictions that have been introduced and compounded by the countless rewritten and translated versions. as for why God would reveal himself to those who had no connection to the Jewish scriptures, well, Does he not want to be known in every corner of the earth? Why operate so exclusively in a comparative back water?
My comparison is valid as everything that supports Christian theological claims comes from the tongues of men. Men who, with alarming frequency, use this concept to control the temporal lives of others and enrich themselves. Man is simply man. we are an evolved species yes, but much of what the religious call sin, is the remnants of our lowly beginnings as a species, and were vitally important to our survival as a species. A healthy sex drive is a good thing.
I agree with you. First of all…. Anything that you say concerning the majority of what is in the Bible outside of some historical places and events is going to be speculation that it happened. Everything in history itself, written down is speculation when that history is millennia and centuries removed from our present and we are getting it who knows what generation removed from the original. I don’t know much, but I do I know enough to say I don’t know. Some things I see some come from outside sources, some don’t and still it doesn’t make a hill of beans towards if it were true or not. That is why Faith is faith. You have a confidence in this based on something. Either it is some personal experience of something that you assume something about or something someone told you something about or something someone wrote that you read about. None of this is first hand, second hand or third hand to any of us and we are guessing that someone we don’t know from Adam told the complete truth, without bias, without agenda, without exaggeration, with full knowledge of what they saw or thought or were told themselves by someone else. I feel the same way about George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Dr. Martin Luther King, etc. I used to think Dr. King was an honest man and come to find out he was having affairs. He wasn’t honest with that part I’m pretty sure. Not many women “allow that to go on”. All this when you have so many psychological hurdles, the Dunning Kruger effect, Confirmation Bias, Fallacies, Cognitive Dissonance, Mental Deceptions, etc., etc. Columbus used to our hero, no he was a pillager, rapist and murderer. John Wayne was the duke, now he is a racist. Who knows who these people really were and what they really were about? Thousands of years. We can’t even see 100 years back clearly.
Your shirt, Dan Wallace, does not look like Texas, but my brother in law also looks like that sometimes, and he moved to Texas to retire. Hmmm...... maybe reconsider what shirt you wear when speaking in chapel, etc.....just sayin'
We know mark 16:9-20 was not in the early bibles from the 3rd and 4th century. It was added hundreds of years later and had jesus speaking. The same with the story of jesus and the adulterer is not original.
Wow, 100,000 Greek passages. That sure seems like a lot, didn't Jesus speak Aramaic? Aramaic to Greek to Latin... Not all ancient manuscripts are dust. There are Egyptian papyrus manuscript, dated around 1250BC that are still in existence what credence do we give to the book of the dead? So the veracity for the NT comes from the fact that it was a popular story and there are so many different versions that were often commentary on the stories?
AdUtrumquePeratus76 theres not one Book of the dead, there is a type of Book of the dead. The one you mention was recently discovered & the fragments put together only a short time ago. But you are missing the point. Mainly discussing historical writing, and the documents we base most of our understanding of event in history from. .
AdUtrumquePeratus76 maybe go argue at UN, they were those little ear pieces, so people can have speeches translated. Ask how it’s done. Or all the documents that are written inti different languages now. Or even go to ancient empires like Egypt & others that often had to record documents in multiple languages, or multi lingual people now. Do they understand? Often local discussions were put into Greek since it was such a wide so
It seems that given his goals of making himself known to all of humanity, focusing so much attention of a relative backwater seems like a poor marketing strategy. I do question the veracity and historicity of the new and old testament. Some things appear to be correct, yet a great many others are laughably incorrect. Why does God reveal so much, yet speak of the world as if it were flat and as if all places resembled Palestine?
You know this is a fantastic discussion. But the only logical fallacy is comparing Jesus Christ to Julius Caesar. There's evidence that Julius Caesar is a real human being. Julius Caesar doesn't have super powers. Jesus has super powers have you ever seen anyone else with superpowers I'm just saying
I don't think Dan was comparing Jesus to Julius Caesar in a person to person way, but simply stating the historicity of both persons as shown by ancient evidence. The evidence for Jesus' life, words, and resurrection is the most attested historical fact and the evidence is second to none. If we take the evidence for the existence of Julius C, Tacitus, Herodotus, Aristotle, Plato etc, then the evidence for Jesus' life is the surest thing in history :)
We do have none Christian sources from the first and second century attesting to Jesus having lived, having been crucified and having done great deeds or sorcery depending on the source and how they wanted to frame his achievements. Plus the fact that no scholar has reconciled the pre-crucifixion events to the subsequent post-crucifixion events concerning the apostles, explosion in Christianity, etc. without relying on the resurrection. This makes strong circumstances evidence for what the Gospels state.
Trek Wars Uh. I think you’re confusing the history of a person’s existence with the history of all the person’s accomplishments. For example. We know George Washington was a real person, but the story of him chopping down the cherry tree is almost certainly fictional. Or, does a fictional cherry tree story equate with the non-historicity of George Washington?
I love to study the history of the bible.thank you.
Thank you so much, Dan Wallace!
"Faith is being sure of what you hope for..." In essence, a profound sense of gratitude for what we have already received. For an absolute promise from God, that is what predestination is all about. For there is only one thing that God cannot create, which is the only thing that we can create with no material help from God. Our gratitude born of humility.
If YOU'RE of Calvinism that is inconsistent, Calvinism teaches MITICULOUS DETERMINISM, they do not teach that a believer or unbeliever can THINK, SAY, or DO anything apart from GOD causing /making them do it. SCRIPTURE CONTRADICTS CALVINISM COMPLETELY. Here are only 3 absolutely clear verses, which utterly refute Calvinism in any language, including Hebrewand Greek- Jeremiah 7:31,19:5, 32:35. God says these Israelites did what He DID NOT COMMAND and what they did NEVER ENTERED HIS MIND, IN Hebrew- was never constructed in His mind. There are literal hundreds of verses which instantiate that Sovereign God made mankind with the ability to choose to follow after His will or run contrary to it and this is demonstrated throughout the Old and New Testaments. A refutation of Calvinism need only be an argument, in context, like these 3, for the God given ABILITY TO CHOOSE TO FOLLOW HIS WILL or run contrary to it.
@Rightlydividing7 616
Wronglydividing7 617
Calm down and study the Scriptures more.
@1ADChristianity I've added Part 2 as a video response to this video. Hope that helps!
An important and wonderful lecture with many important questions. It is very refreshing to hear a learned man with such a sense of humor who is not afraid to discuss challenging questions in a reasonable way and who gives us the whole picture. Daniel Wallace is the perfect antidote to Bart Ehrman, a very disappointing scholar because although he says truths, he doesn't say ALL the truth. When you know the whole picture, then the Erhman's attacks against christianity appear for what they are - fraudulent statements.
Just wanted to thank you for saying that. I'm brand new to textual criticism and as and all I knew about was dr.erhmans side PERIOD! I have been so angry with God I mean nearly lost my faith! Erhman had me man. I've been sick and dazed trying process the implications of of everything I have staked eternal life on. But your words ANTIDOTE to erhman..I wasn't aware we even possessed a comback to Erhman. I cannot begin to thank you P Belgazo. I feel like I've been poisoned at Erhmans well. So grateful! Needed this staggering evidence so badly. Thanks again
@@austinnewby9666 Thank you for this nice comment. My study of religions and particularly of their sociological impact convinced me that Christianity (but perhaps not all its variants) and more particularly its doctrine (churchmen have not always been up to the challenges and the spirit of the Gospels) is all in all the best of religions (if we need to have one ...but who and what society can really "live" without a religious perspective) to ensure harmony between men but also to ensure the progress of societies because it has been profoundly liberating. Each of these statements would deserve to be developed and argued, but it would take too long here. However, one of the thinkers who best defends these theses is Rodney Stark, one of the great American sociologists of religions. He is also a very good writer, with a very direct style, which makes his books very pleasant to read.! Stark is the one who contributed the most to opening my eyes, to advancing me intellectually and freeing me from Enlightenment propaganda (particularly the French Enlightenment, unfortunately still influential) I particularly recommend “False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History” and also "For the Glory of God" (probably his masterpiece) and "How the West Won".
@austin newby
Check out Dr James White as well. He is very fine Greek scholar and debated Ehrman too.
@@luboshcamber1992 Thank you for this info. I didn't know him. I started listening to some youtube clips of him and my impression is positive so far.
There is an interview where he was ask what he thinks about Bart Ehrman and he said he feels sorry for him. He says "he will answer to God"
Wallace is a good Christian.
Thank you for sharing, excellent lecture!
"By AD 500, 80% of all Christian books have been written on a codex. 20% of all non-Christian books had been written on a codex. It's the first and probably the only time in the history of the church where Christians have been ahead of the technological curve." That statement actually hits hard. What are we doing with technology today and how can we get ahead like we were before?
He did reveal himself, the nature of man is sin, idolatry, selfishness, hatred, etc just look at the world around you. Only by God's grace can you be saved. Not everyone will be. If you don't believe then God has not given grace to you. I used to be an atheist, so I know how you feel. I'm very glad the lord has saved me.
Just love these lectures.
Thank you so much! This is very helpful!
Amen! The early Apostles & Disciples really didn't need much of the Bible for people to be saved,all one needed to know was that Jesus was God in flesh and came to save sinners by Grace alone(his doing) and if you repent and believe you will be saved,because He has made you born again.The Gospel is pretty simple and since the Holy Spirit saves through this message,anyone could repeat it,even an unbeliever and it will still save people.
Tim Ballentine actually they almost never said much about Jesus being God. That came in 4th century.
I am a muslim and i agree with what you said except the part about jesus being god
“If we think we can have absolute certainty about what is the word of God, then we’ve got some problems with that”. Yes you heard that right, direct quote, Dan Wallace at Biola University Chapel.
Your point being? He goes on to explain his comment.
My eternal destiny does not hang in the balances of Suetonius or Caesar. So the fact that we have few ancient copies of their works is of zero consequence.
I really love this man !
"The great scholar: Dan Brown..."
Shots fired 🤣
Who exactly is saying that we can't know what Jesus said? Even skeptical scholars seem to acknowledge that at least certain sayings can be likely traced back to Jesus. 19:25
Thank you for posting this.
A high Christology is essential for seeing the gospels for what they are. Once we reduce Jesus to a rabbi or ethicist, we'll see the gospels more as stories or mythologies that grew over time.
What about the Old Testament? What about when pretexting the New Testament with the Old Testament and the verses conflict each other?
didnt the dead sea scrolls survive?
Again, God is under no obligation to save you. All of these questions are answered quite clearly in the book of Romans. Only by the grace of God will you have faith. If you don't have faith then you don't have faith.
We got the texts didn't we? Even secular scholars like Bart Ehrman would admit to how well the texts that we have now match what the autographs had. The messiah was always going to come from the seed of David. Why would that happen in China? Who's people had no personal connection to the God of the Jewish scriptures.
Why nobody made an engraved copy in copper sheets? those would last for many centuries or make a copy in clay???
Who's "they" who found these quotations from the church fathers commentaries in Germany?
That is the Muslim veiw. That the original Bible is lost, that is why Allah gave us the Quran.
I see evidance of the Christian faith in History but not Islam.
Just curious, what are some of the things you’ve learned on the transmission of the Biblical text?
@@cameronclark447
I don't understand your question.
Why all the texts are in greek, why there is no fragment written in aramaic? Wasnt aramaic the common language for jews in the first century? Or some fragments written in hebrew???
Dr. Wallace is obviously a learned scholar and an intelligent man, but it's rather frustrating to continue to hear scholars claim that "we don't have the original autographs of the New Testament".
This claim can only be made on a faith basis, as manuscripts are continually being discovered and with the historical references by the apostolic fathers regarding the reverence with which the writings were treated, it is possible, maybe even probable, that they took great pains to preserve these documents. And if they did, then what is difficult to believe that the originals may still be preserved somewhere, since we know that the Dead Sea Scrolls were preserved for 2,000 years?
So, it would actually be more accurate to say that "we are not aware of the existence of the originals".
I forgot to say if was DA Carson who was giving his opinion on Bart Ehrman
What about people who have heard it and don't believe? God is under no obligation to save anyone. If you don't have faith you won't be saved.
If the documentation of this story was truly important to God, Why would he chose first century Palestine, an illiterate and highly superstitious society? Why not Grece or China for that matter? China was a literate and advanced society and there are many silk manuscripts predating this period that still exist.
Yes, the nature of men is sin. If you don't see this then you haven't opened your eyes. The problem with your comparison is that the person is not the creator of the universe. But hey, as long as your happy I guess. If you think you're OK then that's all that matters. Don't worry about all this stuff!
"And when it did so, Latin became the lingua franca. The language that everybody spoke in the West. And consequently to this day we have over 10,000 manuscripts in Latin..." ??? Sir, I think you are forgetting to mention the fact of the explicit censorship that existed that curtailed the translation of the Bible into non-Latin languages. Additionally, Latin was not universally adopted in Britain and other areas of Europe, as implied and, in many instances, limited to only the elite.
religion is based on superiority thats why these old religions are around still
the historians he quotes wrote well after the story of jesus and only wrote what the people were saying about jesus
Check out Jim Warner Wallace, former cold case detective and staunch atheist, the author of Cold Case Christianity, God's Crime Scene, Forensic Faith etc. He used his skills as a detective and atheist to examine the facts of history concerning Jesus and was reluctant to accept Jesus, but eventually realized that all the evidence pointed only in one direction and it was his pride preventing him from accepting the truth about Jesus' resurrection. Jim is helpful, as a detective, in explaining that those historians don't prove the truth of the gospels, but simply corroborated the details written in the 4 gospels. That is a very important point when building a cumulative case of circumstantial evidence.
I like to listen to former skeptics like C. S. Lewis or Josh McDowell, who finally gave in because they have accepted the evidence and have acknowledged their bias toward God and Jesus.
@@ambassador_in_training Also, A book by Frank Morison, "Who Moved the Stone?"
Except you're assuming the end of your argument to validate it. But whatever, like I said, as long as you're fine with where you're at.
That certainly is a convenient way out. I am not stating that God has any obligation, merely pointing out that he sure seemed to think it was important to reveal himself in order to make sure we did not worship another god. If he is still concerned about this, why not update his resume with some scientific proof?
But what about all of those damned souls that perished without hearing the good word in the centuries it took to circle the globe?
Ya, and since God is a robot, and unjust, I guess they are all doomed.
@@MPaulHolmesMPH Wrong, the same thing that happens to kids who are never born probably happened to them, they go to heaven automatically since they never got a chance.
If there are people who have never heard, why
does that bother you?
Yes, he wanted it to spread over the world and it has.
The paradox is "Beware of the scribes..." Mark 12:38. It's an egocentric issue. NT close enough for horseshoes.
If we have the Dead Sea Scrolls which dated 1000 years before Jesus- why is it assumed that the originals of the NT have turned to dust?
Also only then unique circumstances helped the dead sea scrolls survive.Diocletian went on a huge persecution of christians & burned many christian libraries.
early christian were consider a cult....by the romans and jews...
Dartpopo2000 Popo cult would be a more modern term. A sect, yes. But cult is a more modern construct, especially the way we use it now. Which is different even from how we used the term in the 70’s. Actually the Romans thought of them as a sect within Judaism. It was some time before they thought of them as a distinct group. And as far as what the Jewish leaders felt - well one only has to read the arrest & trial of Jesus to get an answer to that.
Dead Sea Scrolls were written from 250 BCE to 70 CE, very deteriorated, nothing to do with Jesus. Copying old manuscript might have some errors specially the fear from romans if caught someone would send to the lions, I image a lot were verbal.
@@novomundo4337 Still can’t show it has been changed.
OK...let try 1
Zippora is alive i EX 4....YES
Her dad REUEL, gave her away EX 2...YES YES
Moses father-in-low Jetro in EX 3 ....YES and UPS
This isn't a contradiction, while "Reuel" may have been his name, Jethro is a Hebrew "title" meaning his excellency....the daughters of Reuel call him by name, yet Moses called him "your excellency"
Makes sense because Reuel gave him(a foreigner) a home and a family even though foreigners to any land were treated harshly in that era
You sure about all that? Luke 24:42, 43 seems to disagree with you. So does John 21:1-15.
Can you elaborate?
Luke 24:42-43
"they gave him a piece of boiled fish and he took it and ate it before them"
Relevance?
lol Disease isn't one of the four horsemen...
The nature if man is sin? I disagree. I feel that the concept that we are naturally horrible, and anything good about us is thanks to some supernatural external entity is terribly psychologically manipulative. This is the same technique used by domestic abusers. "you are nothing without me, worship only me, if I hurt you it's for your own good, be good or more bad things will happen. I must say I am not "lost". I am quite fulfilled and amazed by the natural world that surrounds me.
Very knowledgeable man-super cheesy jokes! 😀
Google, Hebrew Word Pictures, by Dr. Frank T. Seekins, youtube!
Google, Hebrew Word Pictures, by Aquilla Fleetwood, youtube!
Personally i find the history side really interesting but the idea that the Bible is the word of God is just absurd. I simply can't believe that if a God exists it would explain it's ideas in such a way and with such little intellectual clarity.
If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?
@@beautyler1691 It would depend on your definition of christianity and what it would mean to "become a christian".
@@versioncity1 A Christian is someone who believes the death and resurrection of Jesus to bring God and man together. One who hears the teaching of Jesus and does what he says. One who loves their neighbor as themselves and loves God with all their heart, soul, and mind.
Becoming a Christian involves repentance. A man forsakes his ways and his thoughts and fills his heart with Gods words and wisdom.His mind is renewed and he is washed with the word of God and begins the journey of living a life set apart for God.
But one must earnestly believe. Because it is not of ourselves but it is God who wills in us to do good so that no man may boast. We put away malice, foul language, sexual immorality and all the other things that defile a man. We take care to guard out hearts because everything we do flows from it.
Clearly professing to be a Christian doesn't make you one. But you will know people by their fruits. That decision is made at the end at the judgement. Christ's teachings go as far as loving your enemies, which one can only do with the power of the spirit.
That's alot and sorry if it's all over the place. I just woke up lol.
@@beautyler1691 Yeah it's a bit all over the place. Maybe try again another time.
@@versioncity1 nice try. I read it again and it makes perfect sense.
What about those who have heard, and do not believe these claims? We are built to not accept something to be true without adequate evidence. Given the christian theology, God is omnipotent, and omnipresent, and created us. If this is true, he knows exactly what it would take to prove himself to us, yet chooses not to. Please understand that many like me were raised in the church, and lost our faith during an intense scholarly search that disclosed too many logical fallacies.
There is quite a large body of scholarship that are based on the myriad of discrepancies and contradictions that have been introduced and compounded by the countless rewritten and translated versions. as for why God would reveal himself to those who had no connection to the Jewish scriptures, well, Does he not want to be known in every corner of the earth? Why operate so exclusively in a comparative back water?
My comparison is valid as everything that supports Christian theological claims comes from the tongues of men. Men who, with alarming frequency, use this concept to control the temporal lives of others and enrich themselves. Man is simply man. we are an evolved species yes, but much of what the religious call sin, is the remnants of our lowly beginnings as a species, and were vitally important to our survival as a species. A healthy sex drive is a good thing.
AdUtrumquePeratus76 not really. Just your poor conclusions.
@@vincewhite5087 - i am a muslim and i agree with you
I agree with you. First of all…. Anything that you say concerning the majority of what is in the Bible outside of some historical places and events is going to be speculation that it happened. Everything in history itself, written down is speculation when that history is millennia and centuries removed from our present and we are getting it who knows what generation removed from the original. I don’t know much, but I do I know enough to say I don’t know. Some things I see some come from outside sources, some don’t and still it doesn’t make a hill of beans towards if it were true or not. That is why Faith is faith. You have a confidence in this based on something. Either it is some personal experience of something that you assume something about or something someone told you something about or something someone wrote that you read about. None of this is first hand, second hand or third hand to any of us and we are guessing that someone we don’t know from Adam told the complete truth, without bias, without agenda, without exaggeration, with full knowledge of what they saw or thought or were told themselves by someone else. I feel the same way about George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Dr. Martin Luther King, etc. I used to think Dr. King was an honest man and come to find out he was having affairs. He wasn’t honest with that part I’m pretty sure. Not many women “allow that to go on”. All this when you have so many psychological hurdles, the Dunning Kruger effect, Confirmation Bias, Fallacies, Cognitive Dissonance, Mental Deceptions, etc., etc. Columbus used to our hero, no he was a pillager, rapist and murderer. John Wayne was the duke, now he is a racist. Who knows who these people really were and what they really were about? Thousands of years. We can’t even see 100 years back clearly.
Your shirt, Dan Wallace, does not look like Texas, but my brother in law also looks like that sometimes, and he moved to Texas to retire. Hmmm...... maybe reconsider what shirt you wear when speaking in chapel, etc.....just sayin'
Good stuff.
We know mark 16:9-20 was not in the early bibles from the 3rd and 4th century. It was added hundreds of years later and had jesus speaking. The same with the story of jesus and the adulterer is not original.
Wow, 100,000 Greek passages. That sure seems like a lot, didn't Jesus speak Aramaic? Aramaic to Greek to Latin... Not all ancient manuscripts are dust. There are Egyptian papyrus manuscript, dated around 1250BC that are still in existence what credence do we give to the book of the dead?
So the veracity for the NT comes from the fact that it was a popular story and there are so many different versions that were often commentary on the stories?
AdUtrumquePeratus76 theres not one Book of the dead, there is a type of Book of the dead. The one you mention was recently discovered & the fragments put together only a short time ago. But you are missing the point. Mainly discussing historical writing, and the documents we base most of our understanding of event in history from. .
AdUtrumquePeratus76 maybe go argue at UN, they were those little ear pieces, so people can have speeches translated. Ask how it’s done. Or all the documents that are written inti different languages now. Or even go to ancient empires like Egypt & others that often had to record documents in multiple languages, or multi lingual people now. Do they understand? Often local discussions were put into Greek since it was such a wide so
Is he not glorious enough to make that point clear to literate scribes?
It seems that given his goals of making himself known to all of humanity, focusing so much attention of a relative backwater seems like a poor marketing strategy. I do question the veracity and historicity of the new and old testament. Some things appear to be correct, yet a great many others are laughably incorrect. Why does God reveal so much, yet speak of the world as if it were flat and as if all places resembled Palestine?
You know this is a fantastic discussion. But the only logical fallacy is comparing Jesus Christ to Julius Caesar. There's evidence that Julius Caesar is a real human being. Julius Caesar doesn't have super powers. Jesus has super powers have you ever seen anyone else with superpowers I'm just saying
I don't think Dan was comparing Jesus to Julius Caesar in a person to person way, but simply stating the historicity of both persons as shown by ancient evidence. The evidence for Jesus' life, words, and resurrection is the most attested historical fact and the evidence is second to none. If we take the evidence for the existence of Julius C, Tacitus, Herodotus, Aristotle, Plato etc, then the evidence for Jesus' life is the surest thing in history :)
We do have none Christian sources from the first and second century attesting to Jesus having lived, having been crucified and having done great deeds or sorcery depending on the source and how they wanted to frame his achievements. Plus the fact that no scholar has reconciled the pre-crucifixion events to the subsequent post-crucifixion events concerning the apostles, explosion in Christianity, etc. without relying on the resurrection. This makes strong circumstances evidence for what the Gospels state.
Trek Wars
Uh. I think you’re confusing the history of a person’s existence with the history of all the person’s accomplishments.
For example. We know George Washington was a real person, but the story of him chopping down the cherry tree is almost certainly fictional. Or, does a fictional cherry tree story equate with the non-historicity of George Washington?
Only Quran is uncorrupted